Blog: FCAR Speakout

Florida’s Current Standardized Testing Regimen and the Gifted

By Diane Hanfmann, Palm Beach Gardens

        The gifted provide a different angle from which they interact with the FCAT. According to Florida Statute 1008.22, the purpose of Florida’s student assessment program for public schools is to “enhanc[e] the learning gains of all students and to inform parents of the educational progress of their public school children." Unfortunately, the information obtained from the results may be of less value to the gifted than they may be to some other student groups. Knowing that a gifted ten-year-old scored well on the fifth grade reading FCAT, for example, means little when that same child can read as well as most tenth graders. Proficiency at grade level may not require much growth of the gifted and, in some cases, may already be accomplished on day one of the school year. Sadly, an acceptable score obtained in March appears as a success to onlookers who forget the possibility that this passing score may have been possible a long time ago, even years ago. The repeated determination that all is well for the gifted based on an age-selected FCAT’s passing score repeatedly asks little of these advanced learners and detracts from their development.
 

        The A++ plan is of little value as well. The reporting of levels of proficiency rather than the amount of learning gains (as compared to other student groups) provides a rosier picture and neglects to provide a comparison which may be of value. This information, which is lacking in the student reports, could be thought of as allowing for a determination of an equal opportunity to learn. Since NCLB does little or nothing for the gifted, it seems desirable that assessment/monitoring take into account the special traits of the gifted and provide for a better tailoring of the assessment procedure to the learner. If laws exist which mandate that the testing regimen must continue as it is, it may still be advisable to allow for additional assessments, such as out-of-level testing. Academic talent search scores provide useful information and allow one to see the variety of skill levels within that top 2 percent of the IQ continuum. Contrary to the preponderance of one-size-fits-all programming, all gifted children are not alike.

        More accurately selected assessments may provide better information to be included in the educational plans, thus allowing for a better baseline point to evaluate progress. Just as alternate assessments have been made available to students with disabilities because it was felt that the administration of the age-selected FCAT would not be adequate to demonstrate their abilities, an argument could be made that similar accommodations could be justified for students who are capable of performing above their age-selected grade. In my district, whole-grade accelerated students (those who “skip a grade”) take the FCAT of their accelerated grade while those with subject acceleration (those who take only one subject at a higher grade level) participate in their age-selected FCAT even though their instruction may have occurred in a higher grade level.
 

        A second component of the A++ plan which raises concern would be the inclusion of money and reputations for the adults charged with educating the gifted by obtaining a good FCAT score. This may incite one to wonder if the pressures and benefits to the adults may lead to decisions which make acceleration less likely as it may result in a lower FCAT scores. The possibility of such a dilemma could be put to rest if and when an accountability procedure does not contain benefits for the adults, but instead provides valuable information about the student’s unique needs. It may be a concern to some when schools can benefit from the imposition of underachievement on the gifted, as could possibly be exemplified by the reluctance to accelerate.
 

        Another by-product of the current FCAT pressures is the dominance of
teaching standards needed to pass the test rather than teaching to student needs/learning profiles. This could certainly accumulate into a large amount of time spent by the gifted performing tasks already mastered rather than allowing them to acquire new material. Although these children may be deemed bright and easily successful, such an outcome is not automatically achieved. These easily proficient children are as deserving of a meaningful education as any other student group. Their lack of fit with the general curriculum may be found in their strengths to the same degree that the children with learning challenges fail to find a fit due to their disability. For the gifted population, this lack of fit could equate to spending 180 days accessing a curriculum which provides for little to no growth. Appropriately-selected assessment could provide for a good basis to plan instruction.

 

Send mail to webmaster@fcarweb.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 04/06/08